Elections ought to be decided by issues not anger

Filing for the November elections ends Monday, but already there are a few races that have proved interesting to watch in the coming months.

Right now, one of the races catching a lot of attention is the campaign for the U.S. Senate seat held by Ted Cruz, who is being challenged by Beto O’Rourke. Many pollsters are saying the race, at present, is too close to call, with Cruz holding a slight lead.

It is interesting to note a few recent observations by Cruz.

“It’s clear we have a real and contested race where the margin is far too close for comfort,” Cruz said during one campaign stop, The Texas Tribune reported.

“The biggest challenge I have in this race … is complacency,” Cruz said. “People say all the time, ‘Oh, come on, it’s a Texas re-elect. How could you possibly lose?’ Well, in an ordinary cycle, that might be true. But this is not an ordinary cycle. The far left is filled with anger and rage and we underestimate that anger at our peril.”

Others, including Gov. Greg Abbott, disagreed with Cruz’s assessment there was a risk of a “blue wave” during the nation’s upcoming November elections.

“Texas is going to stay red,” said Abbott, whose Democratic opponent, Lupe Valdez, has not caught traction in the way O’Rourke has against Cruz.

But Cruz is right about one thing — at least on the state and national level — there appears to be a lot of anger out there.

That is unfortunate.

A close race, like the one shaping up between Cruz and O’Rourke can be good in one respect. It forces each candidate to take a firm stand on the issues he holds. It allows voters to weigh which candidate would best represent their needs. In a perfect world, the party each candidate belonged to would have some bearing, but not an overwhelming one.

What is not good, however, was a scene at a recent Cruz rally when a protester interrupted with a sign reading, “Russian Bootlicker,” who called Cruz a coward and used an expletive to denounce the crowd before breaking out in chants of “Beto!”

That has no place whether it be a campaign stop, a town hall meeting, a debate or anytime issues are being discussed.

While we understand there is a lot of anger among the voting public, allowing the anger to overwhelm the understanding of issues is contrary to what elections are supposed to be about.

(57) comments

If there’s any doubt about voting for a Republican or a Democrat in November, go read “Don't vote for Democrats in November election,” by Ray Holbrook in The Daily News, July 11. Democrats will take America hard left and pillage working class Americans.

A lot of wisdom in that column from Judge Ray Holbrook. Here's the link:https://www.galvnews.com/opinion/guest_columns/article_7157b270-b4b2-57fe-850e-438448a3259c.htmlLiberals denounce this column as not reflecting the Democratic party but everything can be fact checked as accurate. And in today's paper we have a guest column from Dan Freeman promoting open immigration. Open immigration means open borders. Local Democrats claim they're not for open borders but then one of their Democrat leaders Keith Ellison wears a shirt proclaiming "Yo no creo en fronteras" [I don't believe in borders].

When Trump banned Muslims at the airports, Americans got angry and made it stop. When Trump took children away from their parents at the border, Americans got angry and made it stop. When Trump began revoking security clearances to muzzle his critics, the intelligence committee got angry - and they will make it stop. If Republicans would hold their president to any standard of presidential decency, anger wouldn't be necessary. But they, and 40% of the country, have decided that Trump can do no wrong. The only check on his power is the anger of Americans.

"Trump banned Muslims at the airports" That is not true. Countries who initiate terrorism were targeted, not religions. And the Liberal courts initially blocked that but the Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional in Trump v Hawaii."Trump took children away from their parents at the border" Only from parents whose parentage was questioned. It turns out many were not their parents, some even kidnapped these children. Do you condone Child trafficking? Sex trafficking? Other children taken from parents who were felons and not just because of their illegal entry. That's done here in the United States to citizens. Children were also removed from parents who proved to be a danger to the children in question. So Bailey says it's okay to keep them with child abusers.And when the same was done by the Obama administration according to his Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson that was okay but not under Trump?"Trump began revoking security clearances" - this was done by the Obama administration in 2013.https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/government-security-clearance-list-100195Muzzled? No one's first Amendment right to free speech is being infringed upon. In fact, he's louder than ever. In the Supreme Court case Department of Navy v Egon the president's authority to remove security clearances was affirmed.Bailey, you are an angry person. Knowing the TRUTH will alleviate that. What you post is nothing but a pack of Liberal talking points with no basis in truth - LIES!

Then why wasn't Saudi Arabia banned? Most of the terrorists came from there. None of the countries where the 911 terrorists originated from were banned. Perhaps that's because trump has business interests there?

15 of the 19 hijackers on 911 were Saudi. Since 911 the information from Saudi Arabia has been considered "reliable". Trump used the list of countries supplied by the Obama administration."Prompted by concerns about terrorism, the Obama administration did put those seven countries -- Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen -- on a list that makes travel into the United States somewhat more difficult."But Politifact rates the claim as "half true" but writes the list did come from Obama.The Obama list did not include Saudi Arabia.https://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/feb/07/reince-priebus/were-7-nations-identified-donald-trumps-travel-ban/

Your memory is slipping, Emile:"Presidential Proclamation--Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act SanctionsPresidential Proclamation--Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions - July 25, 2011"https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/07/25/presidential-proclamation-suspension-entry-aliens-subject-united-nations

Perhaps a better statement would be: Trump banned, by Executive Order, the entry of citizens of predominately Muslim countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The United States Court of Appeals, not the Liberal Court of Appeals, filed an injunction. Only after rewriting the Executive Order twice (third version: Presidential Proclamation 9645 ) was a limitation on entry from certain countries upheld. The third version included eight countries, not all of which were on the original list. Chad, North Korea, and Venezuela were added and Sudan was removed. Chad has since been removed. The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon.

The people whose children were removed from them were not illegal immigrants. They reported at the border requesting asylum, as is legal under the Refugee Act of 1980. Further, Article 31 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the United States is bound by its accession to the 1967 Refugee Protocol, states parties “shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.” As to your inflammatory statements about removal: DHS statistics show that 99.8 percent of all families were not alleged smugglers. How about some cold hard numbers? I just read a report where maybe three children were removed because the parent ws a criminal. Look it up, you seem to have lots of time to troll the Internet. Or it’s simpler to post just post red meat for the true believers, eh? And really, calling people liberal excrement and liars because an argument cannot be supported? Geez. This is an election year and altho the hard core believers might believe this stuff, for those who really want truth, read a primary source - not blog responses. Even mine (although mine are supported by fact, not unsupported statements and name calling). I don't have time to debunk the rest of the stuff right now, I actually have a life.

" Only after rewriting the Executive Order twice (third version: Presidential Proclamation 9645 ) was a limitation on entry from certain countries upheld." Not quite true.KA Rex, get your facts straight.The Supreme Court eventually upheld key provisions of the original travel bans:Executive Orders No. 13769 and 13780.https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-1436_l6hc.pdfThe Third Travel ban was also upheld under Trump v Hawaii.http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-hawaii-3/"The people whose children were removed from them were not illegal immigrants. They reported at the border requesting asylum..." Rather than report through a Port of entry they were directed by the "no borders" types. Asylum is reviewed at a port of entry, not just any border crossing. " Even mine (although mine are supported by fact...." No facts.

From the US Citizen and Immigration Services website: "To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status."You don't have to arrive through a port of entry. That's what the DHS says when you google "how to seek asylum in the US."

Except, Trump didn't ban Muslims...he banned people from certain suspect countries, initially the EXACT SAME list of countries that Obama drew up. Well over 85% of the world's Muslims were NOT precluded from entry...even CNN and MSNBC had to give up on that one after being proven wrong, but, the canard lives on in popular culture....And, Obama STARTED the practice of 'taking children away from their parrents'....it's called FOLLOWING THE LAW...maybe the only time he ever did that.....but, the media and it's accolytes don't let facts get in their way...the 'photos of children in cages' was from 2014......Brennen's security clearance was rightly revoked because, if for no other reason, he LIED to the FBI and to US on multiple occassions and just pretty near everyone else about national security matters, including the Benghazi 'let them die so it doesn't interfere with the 2012 elections' national stain and shame. One does not GET to use national security info to criticise ANYONE with impunity...that's why it's called 'security'....much less leak and outright notify the 'news' with it.....unless the last namer is Clinton, or similar types, of course....There needs to be MORE, a LOT more security clearnace cancellations, and this should be so for all future Presidents, too...if you're trying to make a buck or cause a stir off Americs'a national security, and worse you are no longer even employed by the government, you should not have a security clearance excpet on an 'as needed' basis.When I retired, I didn't get to keep the keys to my Operations units and the Fire Station, despite having them for decades..... What standard of personal 'decency' did the Democrats hold Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy to? If Pres. Trump starts alley catting IN the Oval Office ON THE JOb, would that be OK like it's been OK before? What standard was Obama held to with his incessant race baiting and ESPECIALLY abuse of our Police, even encouraging the vile BLM to visit the White House, but no visist for the cops........Go ahead and 'resist'...I, personally, LIKE knowing what other people think and how they will act...but, that's just me......

Allowing former National Security officials to keep their clearances is useful for accessing their experience and insight. They provide a sounding board to help current staff help interpret goings-on or possible strategies. It's a long-standing practice that has served this County well. You can make an individual judgement with regard to Brennan but the overall concept is a sound one. It's probably a little different case than a front line supervisor retiring from a refinery or a mid-level manager retiring from an energy company.

"Allowing former National Security officials to keep their clearances is useful for accessing their experience and insight. "The "experience" and "insight" from a Communist? How this Dodo Bird ever became CIA director defies logic. He said he's not partisan - neither Democrat nor Republican. He voted Communist then later fretted his decision only after it was discovered.

I agree with your first sentence. That's why I said 'as needed'....that will weed out the ex-government employed hacks and goobers and allow people actually interested in security and sharing their knowledge with those equally dedicated to the job to do so.The leakers and tell all writers and such can go pound sand....that would include anybody FIRED for job performance issues, liars under oath, etc......such as several right now greatly deserving to be separated from ANY national security info.....Long standing doesn't mean forever when conditions change, and it's REAL safe to say that we have a whole 'nuther set of folks these days who think it's perfectly OK to decide who should and should not be in power, and let the voters go do some of that sand pounding.....they do not deserve the same courtesies as honest and honorable people......

I have a question for Liberals. While I have no problem with what Liberals call "Cultural Appropriation" I know Liberals do.Why isn't Robert O'Rourke's use of "Beto" an example of "Cultural Appropriation"? He isn't Hispanic. I know "Beto" is the diminutive of Roberto and Humberto, Spanish first names and Robert O'Rourke has a T-shirt with Beto on it from his youth. I have a cousin Beto. Now Ted Cruz has an American mother and Cuban father so by your standards it is okay to call him "Ted".Just asking or this another example of Liberal double standards?Good thing the Spanish equivalent of Donald is Donald. [beam]

When someone goes by a name other than the one he was given at birth, it usually because that is the name they want to go by. It could be Beto,Ted, Felito or Jim. I rarely go by my given name.Unless Beto had a long range plan when he was young, he has no other reason than he prefers being called Beto ,for the name he uses.Born in El Paso, the son of Melissa Martha (Williams) and El Paso County Judge Pat Francis O'Rourke.He was nicknamed "Beto", which is a common Spanish nickname for "Roberto"The Irish-American O'Rourke has long explained that "Beto," the Hispanic nickname for his given name Robert, was a nickname given to him in infancy that "stuck.""My parents have called me Beto from day one," he told CNN after Cruz released an ad attacking his adopted name, "and it’s just — it’s kind of a nickname for Robert in El Paso. It just stuck."When it comes to first names, O’Rourke and Cruz have something in common: Cruz goes by “Ted,” but he was born Rafael Edward Cruz.Chris Cuomo asks Sen. Ted Cruz why he’s criticizing his Democratic challenger Beto O’Rourke for going by the childhood nickname ‘Beto’ when Cruz’s real name is actually Rafael: “You’re absolutely right. My name is Rafael Edward Cruz.”

His full name is Rafael Edward Cruz. The diminutive of Rafael is Felito which is what he went by until he started getting teased at school. According to his biography he was made fun of in school because he did well & was a smart alec. He said it doesn't help when your name rhymes with Cheeto & Frito. So, his mom suggested several derivatives of both his first & middle names. He chose Ted, although it took his dad over a year to accept the name change & not take it as an insult to his Cuban heritage

Still doesn't explain why using "Beto" isn't what Liberals call "Cultural Appropriation".By the way, "Ted" is the diminutive of Edward. That's why they called Edward Kennedy Ted Kennedy. A lot of people go by their middle names or its diminutive equivalent.

Do you really care what name they use. If you are voting for someone because their name is Ted or Beto ,you are voting for the wrong reason. The issues are what is important. Whatever candidate is the closes to the way you think, is the one you should vote for.

As I said,"his mom suggested several derivatives of both his first & middle names. He chose Ted," he also used Felito.

Jim, I don't care what he calls himself. But I know Liberals make a big deal out of cultural appropriation. And you, a Liberal cannot explain how a non-Hispanic, Robert O'Rourke, can use a Hispanic diminutive. Sounds like Liberal hypocrisy.

Let me make this simple for Emile:Ted Cruz has an AMERICAN mother. He is American. The concept is called:"Jus sanguinis" - (Latin: right of blood) is a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens.There is no cultural appropriation here since he has an Anglicized middle name given at birth that he goes by.Ted Cruz's name is Rafael Edward Cruz. Like many who share the same first name as their father he goes by his middle name to avoid confusion. The diminutive of Edward is Ted. No cultural appropriation here.On the other hand Robert O'Rourke's use of "Beto" is cultural appropriation as defined by Liberals since his name is the

"But I know Liberals make a big deal out of cultural appropriation" Right now, you are the only one making a big deal about it.Beto did not choose what he is called . He did not go thru may possible names,as he was always called Beto. Beto and Ted have names that they both like, so what is your reason to dwell on this. Most people have no idea what cultural appropriation is, and do not care. Do you care, and if so, why? If you care what someone is called, didn't President Trump call him Lying Ted. If that's true, than he is a liar, and if not the President is. Rafael Cruz earned Canadian citizenship in 1973 and became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2005, he has Cuban heritage.Beto was born in the USA.

Barack Obama never ran for president. He was born in Kenya. Now his son, Barack Hussein Obama II could run as president because he was born in Hawaii. Funny no one at the time brought up President Obama's jus sanguinis. They should have replied it doesn't matter where he was born since his mother was American-but they didn't. Wonder why no one ever brought it up.[unsure]If they did it was not widespread.

Jim posts :"Right now, you are the only one making a big deal about it."Right now but Liberals made up the term and stick it to anyone not of their ilk."After Bruno Mars is accused of cultural appropriation, black celebrities come to his defense"https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/12/entertainment/bruno-mars-cultural-appropriation-reaction-trnd/index.html"Zac Efron accused of cultural appropriation over dreadlocks"https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zac-efron-accused-of-cultural-appropriation-over-dreadlocks/" ‘It’s just a dress’: Teen’s Chinese prom attire stirs cultural appropriation debate"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/05/01/its-just-a-dress-teens-chinese-prom-attire-stirs-cultural-appropriation-debate/?utm_term=.065554c81f46I remember when the Frito Bandito was banned because people in commercials were pictured with mustaches similar to his. Cultural appropriation.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jfthrlClew

Please explain "cultural appropriation." I've literally never heard or seen the term until this thread. As for Beto, I plan to vote for him simply because he's running against Ted Cruz. I'd vote for whomever opposes Cruz no matter what their name is.

Steve, ask a Liberal what if means, because they all know about it. That is what Carlos said.This is a example that I found..Cultural appropriation is the borrowing of certain aspects from another culture. Emulating ethnic styles and traditions is a form of cultural appropriation. Getting a tattoo of a Chinese character is an example of cultural appropriation.

It also must be using a name that one group claims as their own, such as Beto. I guess I can no longer be called sensei .

This is a song, that this brings to mind. Lynyrd Skynyrd - What's Your Name https://www.bing.com/search?q=what%27s+your+name+song&FORM=QSRE2

"You talking about it, is the first time I have heard of cultural appropriation."Liberals are the only ones making a big deal out of it. It's been on the news for a LONG time. I guess that doesn't speak well of your news source, Jim.

"Please explain 'cultural appropriation.' I've literally never heard or seen the term until this thread." Steve FougaWiki: Cultural appropriation is the adoption of elements of a minority culture by members of the dominant culture.Huffington: Context, particularly as it relates to power relationships, is a key factor in distinguishing borrowing from exploitative cultural appropriation.https://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-conversation-africa/cultural-appropriation-wh_b_10585184.htmlCultural appropriation goes back to the 19th century when Black music was being performed by white entertainers. (Stephen Foster)Cultural appropriation was claimed when white men in Black face performed as minstrels.Cultural appropriation was claimed when Black music became the basis of mainstream "Boogie Woogie" in the 1940s.Cultural appropriation was claimed when Elvis Presley was accused of playing "Colored Music" in the 1950s.https://www.salon.com/2014/05/17/elvis_wasnt_the_first/Cultural appropriation was claimed by Little Richard when Pat Boone performed his music.Cultural appropriation was claimed when record demos of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons were thought to be performed by a "Colored" band.Cultural appropriation was claimed when college students were forbidden to dress like minorities for Halloween.https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/37916/(I saw something similar at SHSU homecoming parade in the 1970s. They tried to get Marvin Zindler involved at the time.)Cultural appropriation was claimed when they used white actors to portray American Indians and Mexicans in the Westerns from the 1940s, 50s and 60s."Remember Chuck Connors played Geronimo?)Cultural appropriation was claimed when Mexican actor Ricardo Montaban played Khan Noonien Singh an Indian Sikh.And the list goes on."I've literally never heard or seen the term until this thread." Really?From MSNBC: (Steve's News Source)" ‘Hunger Games’ actress calls out Kylie Jenner for cultural appropriation"http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/amandla-stenberg-calls-out-kylie-jenner-cultural-appropriation"Unpacking cultural appropriation in music"https://www.msnbc.com/melissa-harris-perry/watch/unpacking-cultural-appropriation-in-music-176794179784?v=raila"Online feud provokes longer discussion on cultural appropriation"http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/kylie-jenner-online-feud-provokes-longer-discussion-cultural-appropriation

Cultural Appropriation Sticking Points for MusciciansThe Lethbridge Alberta Herald April 23, 1992"Paul Simon did it. Cultural appropriation - artists creating outside their own cultural traditions or experience."Austin Daily Texan Friday, October 30, 2015, Austin, Texas "Cultural appropriation is when people take themes and practices out of context from other cultures."Baytown Sun Tuesday, October 20, 2015, Baytown, Texas "cultural...appropriation: the oft-debated practice of taking elements of another culture - like dress, music, language or cuisine."Santa Fe Reporter Wednesday, July 12, 1995, Santa Fe, New Mexico "In the program, an essay by William Yellow Robe, accused Witten, an Anglo, of cultural appropriation claiming it is inappropriate for an Anglo to write a play about Native Americans."Washington Post December 27, 1997"The Puerto Rican underpinning might provoke familiar complaints of cultural appropriation, but [Paul] Simon has a long history of adopting the culturally specific to illuminate the universal."

"You must have become a Liberal, because you care so much about it." What a laugh, Jim! It's been around for decades and you've never heard of it? It doesn't bother me except that Liberals make a big deal of such nonsense.

Ya know, POST elections should be about politics rather than anger, too.Otherwise, you get 'resistance', refusing to accept the results of a legal election. THAT is the 'direct threat to our democracy'.....even the 2016 losing candidate said so......

Go with hard scrabble politicking all you want, but when you get so demented that you scream at people at their homes or when they're out with their families, or physically attack someone for wearing a cap you don't like, then YOU are the bad actor, no matter which Party you voted for.......Doing so in a group is just plain cowardly, to boot.....

I guess we have too different of backgrounds...in my life and job, strongly disagreeing and even getting loud about it was not about anger, it was about defending one's position when he thought the others were wrong. One doesn't have to be mad or angry to do that....I didn't hate and wish harm on the people who disagreed......I recall several times my best friend on the FD and I would be at an emergency scene giving each other billy heck because of the issues at hand, not because we were angry at each other.....But, that's just me......I don't have to hate anyone to not take any cra_ off them with impunity......

I note you avoided the references I actually made to actual on scene getting in other people's faces and verbally assaulting them while with their families or even punching someone for wearing a cap they didn't like......OK, maybe not avoided, just unable to justify it, so had to deflect to the totally different world of online exchanges....maybe????IMO, anybody personally intimidated by a bunch of computer bites has problems that need additional help......

I didn't reply to your comments because I don't even know about the incidents you brought up. In any case, hateful political demonstrations have a long history in American political discourse, so I don't consider them to be unusual. Unfortunate for sure, but not unusual. They certainly don't concern me as much as do the actions of the people actually in power.

George, I don't think our backgrounds are that different, when it comes to loudly disagreeing and defending one's position, though my job wasn't physically dangerous. I may be wrong, but I think I can distinguish between loud disagreement and anger.

"Start watching a real news network and you'd know about those things..... "

I was almost certain you would post this. Ever think that propaganda network you're talking about blows a few skirmishes out of proportion to distract its viewers and rile them up? Makes a big deal out of nothing while, who knows, maybe even "high crimes and misdemeanors" are being covered by others?

Well Carlos, I'm waiting to see that evidence. I'm not holding my breath, though. But, like I've said many times, it pays to be patient, and I'm willing to wait. If there were criminals in the prior administration, I hope they get 'em! Sincerely.

George, this thread escalated from what I meant as a harmlessly sarcastic comment, into a minor argument that I didn't intend, so I wanted to make clear what I was talking about. First, I almost never, on this forum, feel that anger is being directed at ME during discussions, like it is when someone gets punched in the face for real. In fact, there's a sort of humorous tolerance of non-conservatives in this majority-conservative forum.

But, it feels like there's a latent, spring-loaded, pent-up feeling of disgust towards anything liberal, and in fact anything less than "very conservative," to use a friendlier term than alt-right. To me it feels like anger, or to use the current jargon, b_tthurt. Not anger toward me, just anger in general. I sometimes wonder, "Are people really this p!ssed-off?"

It seems unhealthy, like anybody that P-Oed might burst a blood vessel and collapse at their keyboard. I actually worried about a former, unnamed participant that I feared might erode his health playing around on this internet forum.

I, personally, don't consider Benghazi or the potty server to be nothing, among others......but, that's just me......I prefer my 'news' to be in the uncoveruing business, rather than the covering up.....Anyway, no arguing that I can see, Steve. Just a little East Texas back-and-forthin'.....more drama and danger in a potluck supper at the in-laws house than in that........

Steve, these are two that I have never heard before, they will be on my save list. Dame Judy gives this the right amount of sadness.Dame Judi Dench sings "Send in the Clowns" - BBC Proms 2010https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvZex3Qf7QQ&list=RDyvZex3Qf7QQ&t=2

I have never heard this before, it shows what will come later, from them.Blowing In The Wind (1963) - Bee Geeshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjbVNNXjOzk

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.